The state can still file another, similar lawsuit with a lower court. But as of Monday morning, Utah’s ambitious legal challenge, which could have set the precedent for a massive land transfer across the West, is at a dead end.
In a joint statement Monday morning, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton, Speaker of the House Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, and Attorney General Derek Brown vowed to keep fighting “to keep public lands in public hands because it is our stewardship, heritage and home.”
“While we were hopeful that our request would expedite the process, we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up this case. The Court’s order does not say anything about the merits of Utah’s important constitutional arguments or prevent Utah from filing its suit in federal district court,” the statement reads.
The statement noted that the incoming Trump administration shares “our commitments to the principle of ‘multiple use’ for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management.” The state is still able to challenge management decisions from the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, they said.
Filed in August, the state had petitioned directly to the nation’s high court, asking justices to declare it unconstitutional for the BLM to hold onto land without a formal designation.
About 34% of the entire state, roughly 18.5 million acres, is “unappropriated land.” Controlled by the BLM, that land is still leased for grazing, mining or recreation, but lacks a designation, like a national forest or national park. Much of that land is in Utah’s West Desert.
In its complaint, Utah argued that it’s unconstitutional for the BLM to hold that unappropriated land in perpetuity. Utah invoked original jurisdiction, which allows states to petition directly to the U.S. Supreme Court in certain cases rather than go through lower courts first.
The lawsuit had the potential to unravel the federal government’s system of land management, as it would have likely set a precedent for other states to take over unappropriated land. A number of conservative politicians and Republican-led states filed briefs in support of the suit.
State leaders called the lawsuit “historic” — the state is better poised to manage land within its borders, they argued. The red tape that stymies forest management, permitting and industry would be gone, and local governments could generate more tax revenue. They launched a media campaign called “Stand for Our Land,” which included billboards, print, TV and radio ads and a website advocating for the state’s position in the lawsuit. That PR campaign, along with attorney fees, cost taxpayers more than $1 million.
Environmental groups called the suit a “land grab” — they have little faith in state leaders who promised they wouldn’t privatize the land if they got it, and worried that it would result in environmental degradation while costing the state an unknown amount. “I don’t even know if Utah has the infrastructure to manage 18.5 million acres. How are we going to pay for this?” Utah House Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said on Saturday during a public lands rally.
But early Monday morning, the Supreme Court succinctly wrote: “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied,” marking an end, for now, to the lawsuit.
It’s unclear what the state’s next steps are. Cox previously told reporters that if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, they would file in a lower court — the joint statement on Monday suggests state leaders are considering that.
Read the full report at UtahNewsDispatch.com.